Nathan Bell wrote:
>> As a general rule, more tests are better. OTOH, tests that people
> *choose not to run* are not helpful.
Agreed. But you can choose not to run scipy.stats, right ?
>> I want to know that my changes to scipy.sparse haven't adversely
> affected other parts of scipy. To my knowledge, there are only a few
> such modules (io, maxentropy, spatial, and sparse.linalg), so I could,
> in principle, test those directly and call it a day. However, it's
> possible that modules that depend on those modules will expose errors
> that would be hidden otherwise.
Yes, but if you don't run a subset of the tests at all, you run into the
same kind of issues anyway, no ? In Scipy, most packages are relatively
independent from each other, so a 'fast' mode to check that you did not
screw up badly (some import stuff, etc...) is enough most of the time.
IOW, I prefer something where you have to explicitly disregard tests
rather than explicitly include them.
> Still, I'm not giving up my C++ templates :)
:)
David